JUDGMENT : A. Pasayat, J. - Petitioner calls in question legality of the order passed by the Government of Orissa in the Law Department directing his,retirement from service in exercise of powers conferred under Clause (a) of Rule 71 of the Orissa Service Code (in short, the 'Code') after he had attained age of 50 years. Petitioner's case in a nutshell is that there has been improper exercise of power as there is nothing in his service records to show about any inaptitude or inefficiency or deficiency in performance, and therefore, powers under Clause (a) of Rule 71 of the Code have been erroneously and illegally exercised. 2. Factual position so far as undisputed is to the following effect. Petitioner was appointed as a Temporary Munsif in December, 1975, in the Orissa Judicial Service, Class II under Orissa Judicial Service (Class II) Munsifs (Emergency Recruitment) Rules, 1974 (in short, 'Emergency Rules'). In 1981 he was confirmed as Munsi by notification issued by this Court. When substantive vacancies arose in 1988, several officers junior to the Petitioner were promoted to Orissa Judicial Service (Class-I) (Senior) in accordance with Rule 4 of the Orissa Judicial Service Rules, 1964. But Petitioner was not promoted. There were certain adverse entries in his Confidential Character Roll (in short, 'C.C.R.), and on the basis of hose the supersession was done. On 9-2-1989, this Court by notification fixed inter se seniority and the Petitioner was placed at serial 20. He was placed senior to eight officers who had been promoted in 1988. Adverse remarks contained in the C.C.R. for the period of six years were sent by the Registrar of this Court to the District Judge concerned by a D.O. letter on 18-5-1990, and the same were communicated to the Petitioner. Thereafter Petitioner represented to this Court for deletion of the said adverse entries. He was informed by the concerned District Judge that his representation had been forwarded to this Court. Subsequently in 1991, he got promotion to O.J.S., Class I (Junior) by Notification No. 890 dated 17-8-1991. On 14-7-1992, another Notification 'was issued by this Court declaring that Petitioner's promotion to the Cadre of O.J.S. Class I (Junior) was made effective when his juniors were promoted to O.J.S., Class I (Junior). He was not given promotion though in the notification fixing inter se seniority, he was placed higher than others as indicated above. On 14-7-1992, another Notification 'was issued by this Court declaring that Petitioner's promotion to the Cadre of O.J.S. Class I (Junior) was made effective when his juniors were promoted to O.J.S., Class I (Junior). He was not given promotion though in the notification fixing inter se seniority, he was placed higher than others as indicated above. It is to be noted here that O.J.S. Class I (Junior) cadre was created in the year 1989. Petitioner made a representation to this Court for expunction of adverse remarks and to give him show about any inaptitude or inefficiency or deficiency in performance, and therefore, powers under Clause (a) of Rule 71 of the Code have been erroneously and illegally exercised. It is to be noted here that O.J.S. Class I (Junior) cadre was created in the year 1989. Petitioner made a representation to this Court for expunction of adverse remarks and to give him promotion. The entries were not expunged, but it was observed that the grievance regarding belated communication of adverse remarks deserves to be taken note of in future. Petitioner filed a writ application bearing O.J.C. No. 5593 of 1993, but the same was dismissed. SLP (Civil) No. 20109 of 1993 against the order of High Court was also dismissed. 3. Petitioner's case is that as he had been given promotion, the adverse re-entries in his C.C.R. became ineffective. There is no material suggesting inaptitude or inefficiency or any entry in the service book to his discredit or hinting even remotely that he had outlived his utility as a judicial officer. The order of the Government also does not indicate that it was done in public interest. In that background the premature retirement is uncalled for. 4. In the counter affidavit filed by the registry of this Court, it has been indicated that while considering the representation filed by the Petitioner, on consideration of the materials on record, it was observed that the adverse remarks against the Petitioner from 1984 of 1989 were in order. Though the Petitioner was promoted to the cadre of O.J.S. Class I (Junior) by the Court's notification referred to above, the said notification promoting the Petitioner was not made effective till 14-7-1992, as no clearance was received from the Government regarding appointment of his predecessor officer at Pallahara, whose name was recommended for the post of Assistant Commissioner of Endowments, Bhubaneswar. As soon as the appointment order of his predecessor officer was received from the Government, he was posted as S.D. J.M., Karanjia in modification of earlier decision of the Court. As O.J.S. Class I (Junior) cadre was not in existence prior to 1989, Petitioner could not have been given promotion to the said cadre as claimed. Petitioner had make a representation on 21-8-1992 for expunction of his adverse remarks and to give him due promotion, which was considered and rejected as stated above. Petitioner had moved this Court in O.J. C. No. 5593 of 1993, and after dismissal of the said writ application he moved the Apex Court in S.L. P. (Civil) No. 20109 of 1993. The order of dismissal passed by this Court was upheld by the Apex Court. Petitioner's performance as judicial officer was dismal, and there were several entries not only regarding his lack of judicial knowledge, but also touching his integrity. Petitioner was made to retire in public interest prematurely, In other words, it has been stated that this is not a case' of mala fide exercise of power as alleged by the Petitioner, and impugned order has been passed on germane considerations. 5. At this juncture, before we deal with rival submissions, it would be appropriate to take note of the order passed by the Apex Court in the SLP referred to above. It appears that the dismissal of the writ application by this Court was upheld by the Apex Court on perusal of his C.C.R.. Strong reliance is placed by the Petitioner on the decision of the Apex Court in Narasingh Patnaik v. State of Orissa A.I. Rule 1996 S.C. 2015 to contend that after promotion was granted to him, previous entries C.C.R. got obliterated. Further, non-communicated adverse entries cannot be relied upon. 6. Modalities to be adopted while, dealing with a case of premature retirement have been dealt with by the Apex Court in Narasingh Patnaik's case (supra), and also in Baikuntha Nath Das v. Chief District Medical Officer Baripada (1992) 2 S.C. C. 299 : A.I. Rule 1992 S.C. 1020. It has been held that Review Committee has to consider the entire record of service before taking a decision in the matter of course attaching more importance to record of and performance during the later years. It has been held that Review Committee has to consider the entire record of service before taking a decision in the matter of course attaching more importance to record of and performance during the later years. The record to be so considered would naturally include the entries in the confidential records/character rolls both favorable and adverse. If a Government servant is promoted to a higher post notwithstanding the adverse remarks, such remarks lose their sting, more, so, if the promotion is based upon merit (selection) and not upon seniority. (i) An order of compulsory retirement is not a punishment. It implies neither stigma nor any suggestion of misbehavior. (ii) The order has to be passed by the Government on forming the opinion that it is in the public interest to retire a Government servant compulsorily. The order is passed on the subjective satisfaction of the Government. (iii) Principles of natural justice have no place in the context of an order of compulsory retirement. This does not mean that judicial scrutiny is excluded altogether. While the High Court or the Apex Court would not examine the matter as an appellate Court, they may interfere if they are satisfied that the order is passed (a) mala fide, or (b) that it is based on no evidence, or (c) that it is arbitrary in the sense that no reasonable person would form the requisite opinion on the given material, in short, if it is found to be a perverse order. (iv) The Government (or the Review Committee, as the case may be) shall.have to consider the entire record of service before taking a decision in the' matter - of course attaching more importance to record of and performance during the later years. The record to be so considered would naturally include the entries in the confidential records/character rolls, both favorable and averse. If a Government servant is promoted to a higher post notwithstanding the adverse remarks, such remarks lose their sting, more so, if the promotion is based merit (selection) and not upon seniority. (v) An order of compulsory retirement is not liable to be quashed by a Court merely on the showing that while passing it excommunicated adverse remarks were also taken into consideration. That circumstance by itself cannot be a basis for interference. (v) An order of compulsory retirement is not liable to be quashed by a Court merely on the showing that while passing it excommunicated adverse remarks were also taken into consideration. That circumstance by itself cannot be a basis for interference. These aspects were highlighted in Baikunthanath Nath Das's case (supra) which related to a case under Clause (a) of Rule 71 of the Code. 7. It has to be noted that undisputedly there have been entries regarding inefficiency as a judicial officer, and touching his integrity. Right from the beginning of his career, the Petitioner was treated as an average officer and for several years it observed that he had tendency to utilize the official power for personal gains and his general reputation was not even good. His integrity was also stated to be doubtful. Keeping in view the decision of this Court in Baikuntha Nath Das's case (supra) service reports of the Petitioner from 1991 onwards were perused. It has been recorded for some periods that he was an average officer, and it was indicated that he was slow in disposal of cases for which specific instances were indicated and it was 'observed that he was not industrious. To sambas effect observations were made in 1992. In 1993 it was observed that his general reputation was not good. That being the position, the decision to retire the Petitioner prematurely cannot be faulted. 8. It is further stated that the order passed by the Government in the Law Department does not show that the premature retirement of the Petitioner was done in public interest. This plea is without any substance in view of what has been stated by the Apex Court in Registrar, High Court of M.P., Jabalpur v. Kurnari Rajabai Gorkar and Anr. 1995 Supp. (3) SCC 202. It was observed by the Apex Court as follows: ...even though on the face of the order it was not stated that the action was initiated in public interest and even though the particulars in that behalf were not pleaded in the written statement, it was open to the State as well as the High Court to place material before the Court at the trial in support of its contention that the action was taken in public interest. of course, that is not to say that care need not be taken while drafting the order of compulsory retirement or drawing up the defense, if the action is challenged. But on that account alone the order will not be quashed if it can otherwise be shown that the action was taken in public interest.... The writ application fails and is dismissed. No costs. S.C. Datta, J. I agree. Writ application dismissed. Final Result : Dismissed